AMD Ryzen: Good For Enthusiasts, Bad For Investors

[AntonChigurh]

4 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

AMD shourt start a patreon or a gofundme

That's ridiculous, who would willingly give their money to a huge corporation that already has money coming out the ass, so they could receive nothing in return?

 

 

Oh wait shit I forgot that already exists. Xbox Live is a thing still...

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, N1ghtshade said:

That's ridiculous, who would willingly give their money to a huge corporation that already has money coming out the ass, so they could receive nothing in return?

[AntonChigurh]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

Reread the post, I was also making a joke. I edited it after it was made.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, N1ghtshade said:

Reread the post, I was also making a joke.

ohhh...i did not read the middle part where it said money out the ass...yeah...good joke

hehe

[AntonChigurh]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

ohhh...i did not read the middle part where it said money out the ass...yeah...good joke

hehe

Nono look at the bottom of the post. About Xbox live haha  

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, N1ghtshade said:

Nono look at the bottom of the post. About Xbox live haha  

ohhh...so you have 2 good jokes in one post...you beat me

 

[AntonChigurh]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

ohhh...so you have 2 good jokes in one post...you beat me

 

 

[Dylanc1500]

3 minutes ago, N1ghtshade said:

 

Like AMDs stock price.

[WMGroomAK]

48 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

One comment I heard from a video Wendell from Level1techs did about his talk with AMD executives is that apparently they want to break intel's paradigm of pushing for 4 cores on consumer applications.

 

So basically the same mistake all the way back to excavator: they want to convince devs to leverage more cores and threads. That's just not going to happen since it's both complicated (and thus expensive) and intel has a foothold on them big time there is little incentive to invest a lot of money so their apps and games run really well on Ryzen even though the people with 6 cores or 8 cores will be a tiny minority.

I'm going to have to disagree with this assessment...  

 

With what we've seen on clock increases over the last 5 years being fairly minimal from Intel and core counts being stagnant on their side, unless you go to their enthusiast platform, the only real way you're going to see some kind of increased performance on the CPU front is to increase core counts.  Game devs will probably be caught in the middle of this as they do want to be able to increase the amount of environments and complexity of the games they release, if for any other reason than being able to say that they have the most advanced game world on the market and be able to sell more games.  The problem that the devs hit though is that Intel has been a majority of the market on the desktop consumer side for so long that if they don't develop a game that Intel CPUs can run, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

The other argument that is made for higher core/thread counts come down to multi-tasking of system resources.  A system with 16 threads will usually be able to do more at the same time than a system with only 8 threads (whether it's Intel or AMD).  This means that if you do have a game that uses only 8 threads, on a higher core/thread system, you still have system resources to run background tasks such as video capture, compression or even just running a whole bunch of chrome instances.

[AntonChigurh]

Just now, Dylanc1500 said:

Like AMDs stock.

Lisa Su looking at AMD stock like

[raphidy]

16 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

AMD should start a patreon or a gofundme

Lol, like Squeenix.

[Valentyn]

2 minutes ago, raphidy said:

Lol, like Squeenix.

 

Oh jaysus! I forgot they did one....

[cj09beira]

7 minutes ago, N1ghtshade said:

But that's the thing. They've been taking so long to do this sort of stuff, like making higher end GPUs, that it's gonna be a complete uphill battle trying to break into the market. Intel and Nvidia have been making super high end shit for years, and they know how to do it well. AMD is new to it because they avoided it for so long, and it's probably not gonna turn out well for them.

Amd has only been out of the high end in the cpu side, and that was because they were smart and when they saw bulldozer's problems they stopped wasting money on it as much as they could to make a new arch from the bottom, in the gpu side they have had high end gpus since forever only in this last generation had they not had the high end sku (ex: ...6970,7970,7990,290x,fury x)

its an uphill battle because most consumers are super uneducated and don't even research when they buy gpus, amd has had the most advanced gpus for a long time always pushing what the apis can do, but because most people only look for and buy nvidea they ended up with less and less money as R&D is expensive.

you want an example? here the gtx 260 was more expensive, slower and more power hungry than amds 4870 released at the same time and the price was also 440 to 299 respectively, yet nvidea outsold amd by a lot

[AntonChigurh]

Just now, cj09beira said:

Amd has only been out of the high end in the cpu side, and that was because they were smart and when they saw bulldozer's problems they stopped wasting money on it as much as they could to make a new arch from the bottom, in the gpu side they have had high end gpus since forever only in this last generation had they not had the high end sku (ex: ...6970,7970,7990,290x,fury x)

its an uphill battle because most consumers are super uneducated and don't even research when they buy gpus, amd has had the most advanced gpus for a long time always pushing what the apis can do, but because most people only look for and buy nvidea they ended up with less and less money as R&D is expensive.

you want an example? here the gtx 260 was more expensive, slower and more power hungry than amds 4870 released at the same time and the price was also 440 to 299 respectively, yet nvidea outsold amd by a lot

But their high end GPUs weren't able to compete with similarly priced Nvidia alternatives. Stuff like the 290x, 295x2, and Fury X were decent, but completely overpriced. I mean for god's sake, a 295x2 is about ~$2k, and for that same money you could SLI two better GPUs for half the cost and game way better performance.

 

It's all in the marketing my dude. Novideo has pretty good marketing, and because some of their GPUs were more powerful, people assumed they must all be more powerful, and AMD got the short straw

[cj09beira]

14 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

I'm going to have to disagree with this assessment...  

 

With what we've seen on clock increases over the last 5 years being fairly minimal from Intel and core counts being stagnant on their side, unless you go to their enthusiast platform, the only real way you're going to see some kind of increased performance on the CPU front is to increase core counts.  Game devs will probably be caught in the middle of this as they do want to be able to increase the amount of environments and complexity of the games they release, if for any other reason than being able to say that they have the most advanced game world on the market and be able to sell more games.  The problem that the devs hit though is that Intel has been a majority of the market on the desktop consumer side for so long that if they don't develop a game that Intel CPUs can run, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

The other argument that is made for higher core/thread counts come down to multi-tasking of system resources.  A system with 16 threads will usually be able to do more at the same time than a system with only 8 threads (whether it's Intel or AMD).  This means that if you do have a game that uses only 8 threads, on a higher core/thread system, you still have system resources to run background tasks such as video capture, compression or even just running a whole bunch of chrome instances.

i need to upgrade my cpu just because i can't be gaming And have a web browser opened (and gta 5 :-| )

[cj09beira]

Just now, N1ghtshade said:

But their high end GPUs weren't able to compete with similarly priced Nvidia alternatives. Stuff like the 290x, 295x2, and Fury X were decent, but completely overpriced. I mean for god's sake, a 295x2 is about ~$2k, and for that same money you could SLI two better GPUs for half the cost and game way better performance.

 

It's all in the marketing my dude. Novideo has pretty good marketing, and because some of their GPUs were more powerful, people assumed they must all be more powerful, and AMD got the short straw

the 290x was already really competitive, the 295x2 doesn't have a place here as its just a because we can deal, the fury wasnt completely over priced :-| only a bit, we go back to uneducated consumers :-|

[Notional]

52 minutes ago, N1ghtshade said:

But the thing is, AMD needs to be able to do both well. They need to be able to do high end and low end well to succeed. Look at Nvidia. They have low end and high end cards, and both are very good. Same with Intel. They have low end and high end options, and both of them are viable. But AMD is completely focusing on the mid-to-low range options, and not trying to break into the high end market.

 

And if high end is the least interesting point, then how come companies like Nvidia and Intel spend so much time filling out their high end lines, and make an assload of money off of it? You gotta have options for prosumers and budget spenders.

 

Do they? If the profits doesn't make the investment worth it, they really shouldn't. High end consumer market simply isn't the money pit consumers think it is, because the prices are high. The profits are in enterprise solutions and pro products. Not the 5 1700$ CPU's they can sell to clueless consumers with too much money. The mig to low markets are definitely the right place to focus on the consumer side, for marketshare gains, which the 480/470 is a great proof of.

 

That being said, the Ryzen R7 8 core are not mid end products. They just aren't priced with grotesque profit margins like Intel's overpriced products. This is a great way to get marketshare back: Undercut the market.

38 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

if you actually go and look in the past amd slides, they are really aiming at the pro market, look at vega for example: vega will be a 500 mm^2 gpu with better fp16 (for AI) than nvidea's gp100 600 mm^2 gpu and we all know how the Ai market is growing, what is ryzen great at? multitasking, amd is releasing napples with 128 pcie lanes on a single socket motherboard which means you can build compact gpu servers with lots of gpu without needing to have 2 cpus if you don't need them.

now the struggles:

Cuda is still prevalent and a problem for amd, but they now have a tool to convert the code for openGl;

Reliability is still to be determined on ryzen and for server owners thats very important.

15

Exactly. So NVidia are now splitting their GPU's into consumer/gamer cards and professional cards, specifically made for enterprises. The upside to this is that you can optimize the architectures for each market. AMD does not have the economy for that yet, so their cards might be slightly skewed to the enterprise market, rather than the gaming/consumer market. This might hit vega a bit, which means it might not take the performance crown. But if it means it will take on huge pro/enterprise market shares, then it's well worth it for AMD.

 

AMD with naples and vega could turn out to be a match made in heaven for servers. For AMD's sake, I hope so.

30 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

AMD should start a patreon or a gofundme

I agree. Gofundme for you to go on the one way mars mission :p

[AntonChigurh]

8 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

the 290x was already really competitive, the 295x2 doesn't have a place here as its just a because we can deal, the fury wasnt completely over priced :-| only a bit, we go back to uneducated consumers :-|

Launch prices for each card:

R9 Fury X: $650

R9 290X: ~$550

980ti: ~$650

 

The 290x was a good card, but it was a bit expensive. The Fury X was definitely overpriced imho.

[cj09beira]

Just now, N1ghtshade said:

R9 Fury X: $700

R9 290X: ~$550

980ti: ~$500

 

The 290x was a good card, but it was a bit expensive. The Fury X was definitely overpriced imho.

you have your prices wrong the fury x was selling for 650 which was the same price as the 980 ti :-|

[AntonChigurh]

Just now, Notional said:

Do they? If the profits doesn't make the investment worth it, they really shouldn't. High end consumer market simply isn't the money pit consumers think it is, because the prices are high. The profits are in enterprise solutions and pro products. Not the 5 1700$ CPU's they can sell to clueless consumers with too much money. The mid to low markets are definitely the right place to focus on the consumer side, for marketshare gains, which the 480/470 is a great proof of.

If that's so, how come AMD is fighting a losing battle with Intel and Novideo?

[AntonChigurh]

Just now, cj09beira said:

you have your prices wrong the fury x was selling for 650 which was the same price as the 980 ti :-|

Still though, I was pretty close. Plus the Fury X is not nearly as good as a 980ti.

[cj09beira]

Just now, N1ghtshade said:

Still though, I was pretty close. Plus the Fury X is not nearly as good as a 980ti.

ya, the fury suffered from being to big, most of the time it can't use all its compute units

[Notional]

Just now, N1ghtshade said:

If that's so, how come AMD is fighting a losing battle with Intel and Novideo?

What losing war? Ryzen is a success retaking marketshare. So was Polaris regaining marketshare. I don't see them losing anything tbh. Why do people even care about titan xp and titan xpeepee? Noone are dumb enough to buy such overpriced cards anyways. Even the 1080ti is extremely expensive for what it is. If people want competition, buy from the minority market shareholder, not the majority. If there are no halo/koth alternative from the minority company, then either suck it up, or don't buy it.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

ya, the fury suffered from being to big, most of the time it can't use all its compute units

no it suffered from being AMD...the 980ti is just as big...

[Dylanc1500]

2 minutes ago, N1ghtshade said:

Lisa Su looking at AMD stock like

Next thing you know

 

Intel and NVidia are going